Vulnerability of rural workers to pesticides

VULNERABILITY OF RURAL WORKERS TO PESTICIDES

Vulnerabilidade dos Trabalhadores Rurais aos Agrotóxicos

Mariza Dias Xavier1

Andréia Tatielli Alves Urcino1 Gustavo Mendes dos Santos1 Franciele Ornelas Cunha1 Patrícia Alves Paiva1 Neiva Aparecida Marques Diamantino1 Claudiana Donato Bauman1 Orlene Veloso Dias1

Abstract: Introduction: The excessive or inadequate use of pesticides can directly or indirectly interfere

with human and environmental health, representing one of the major public health problems. Objective: To

know the opinions of the rural workers about the health risks related to the use of pesticides. Methodology:

This is a descriptive-exploratory research, with a qualitative approach. It was carried out with 13 rural

workers in a rural district from a municipality located in the North of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The collected

data were typed in Word and later analyzed using the ATLAS.ti 7 software, employing the Thematic Content

Analysis. Results: The rural workers presented a low schooling level and a superficial knowledge about the

health risks involved in the handling of any type of pesticides. Conclusion: The results revealed the social

vulnerability of these rural workers when daily handling pesticides in their work activities, and the risks

related to their health became evident.

Keywords: Rural Workers’ Health; Pesticides; Occupational risk.

Autor para correspondência: Mariza Dias Xavier E-mail: marizadx@hotmail.com

às condições de saúde humana e do meio ambiente, constituindo um dos principais problemas de saúde

pública. Objetivo: Conhecer as percepções dos trabalhadores rurais sobre os riscos relacionados ao uso de

agrotóxicos para sua saúde. Metodologia: Trata-se de uma pesquisa do tipo descritivo-exploratória, com

abordagem qualitativa. Foi realizada com 13 trabalhadores rurais em um distrito rural de um município

do Norte de Minas Gerais, Brasil. Os dados foram transcritos no programa WORD, posteriormente foram

analisados no programa ATLAS.ti 7 com base no referencial de Análise de Conteúdo Temática. Resultados:

Os resultados revelam baixo nível de escolaridade dos trabalhadores e que esses possuem conhecimento

superficial sobre os riscos à saúde que o manuseio de qualquer tipo de agrotóxicos pode trazer. Conclusão:

Diante dos achados ficou evidente a vulnerabilidade social desses trabalhadores rurais no dia a dia ao

manu-sear os agrotóxicos, bem como os riscos de danos à integridade da saúde dos mesmos.

REVISTA UNIMONTES CIENTÍFICA

INTRODUCTION

The excessive or inadequate use of

pesti-cides in agriculture is directly or indirectly

asso-ciated to human and environmental health

condi-tions, representing one of the major public health

problems

_.

_{According to the World Health}

Orga-nization (WHO), due to the several effects of single

or multiple exposures to pesticides, these chemicals

are considered a severe risk for human health. In

the developing countries, these exposures represent

one of the major causes of world morbidity and

mortality. In Brazil, for example, there is a growing

use of pesticides in the croplands, with the

govern-mental compliance

_.

In 1990, the WHO has estimated

approxi-mately 3,000,000 cases of acute intoxication

annu-ally worldwide, more than 700,000 cases chronic

adverse reactions, about 75,000 cases of cancer due

to the exposure to these compounds, and an

esti-mate of 220,000 deaths

_.

According to the National System of

Toxicopharmacological (SINITOX), there were

6,103 recorded cases of human intoxication by

pesticides in Brazil, in 2004, with 164 deaths. At

that time 12,490,726 people lived in the Brazilian

agricultural areas

_.

One of the ways that rural workers can

protect themselves from the harmful effects to their

health caused by pesticides, is using the Personal

Protective Equipment (PPE). When they are not

used or only partially used, the workers are exposed

to the absorption and intoxication by pesticides

through their airways and skin, which might result

in acute or chronic intoxication contexts and also in

the development of pathological clinical conditions

such as cancer

_.

Therefore, this investigation is important in

order to reflect upon the health of the rural worker,

as well as about the risks to which they are exposed

and the ways of prevention. Further, the lack of

scientific literature about this issue has encouraged

this investigation, with the aim of addressing the

vulnerability and integrity of the rural man facing

the exposure to pesticides.

Based on the above considerations, the

objective of this study was to know the views of the

rural workers about the risks to their health related

to the use of pesticides.

METHODOLOGY

This is a descriptive-exploratory

investiga-tion, using a qualitative methodology. It was

con-ducted in a rural district from the municipality of

Nova Porteirinha, in the northern part of the state

of Minas Gerais, Brazil, with an economy mainly

based in plant crops from several fruit species,

among them banana. The study was performed with

rural workers over 18 years old that were in full

workforce. The choice criteria was to be between

18 and 60 years old, to be working in agriculture

for more than one year, to live in the rural district,

to be able to take part and answer questions in an

interview, and to accept to participate in this

inves-tigation. The workers excluded were younger than

18 years old and older than 60 years old, did not

live in the rural area, worked for less than one in

year in farmlands, and were not able to participate

in the investigation.

The participants of this investigation were

randomly selected according to their work areas

which were known by an agricultural technician

that helped with the first contact with these

workers. After the contact with their working area,

the participants were invited to participate in this

investigation and were also questioned about their

profiles and informed about the objective of this

work.

A total of 13 agricultural workers were

interviewed, with the data collection being

terminated according to the criteria of saturation.

Two different data sources were used: the form

for socioeconomic data gathering and a

semi-structured interview. The form contained closed

questions with the aim of gathering information

such as: sex, age, origin, schooling level, data

related to plant crop, and handling of pesticides.

These were collected together before the

semi-structured interview, with the aim of constructing

the profile of the participants. The script of the

semi-structured interview was composed by

questions that addressed their understanding about

the following issues: risk, routine of their work, the

use of pesticides and personal protective equipment

during their working activity, working time, and the

main crop cultivated in their working place. The

interviews were made from March to July, 2017;

some being performed in their working places and

others in their houses, in a previously scheduled

time, all conducted in a private environment and

keeping their privacy. Before starting the interview,

we have requested prior authorization to record

them and later we transcribed them. The interviews

had on average 40 minutes, including answering

the form.

The data were transcribed to the Word

software and were later analyzed by the ATLAS.ti

7 software, using the Thematic Content Analysis

methodology.

This investigation was conducted based on

the Resolution n° 466 of 2012, from the National

Council of Health, after approval from the Ethics

1.792.197. In order to assure the privacy of the

information presented in the results, the reports of

the participants were identified with the letter “P”

(from person) and a number related to the order of

the interviews.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 13 rural workers took part in this

study from six different areas, with 92.3 % being

males and only 7.7 % females. Among these

workers, 46.2 % of them were between 18 and

35 years, and 84.6 % have only the elementary

level of schooling. Social vulnerability is related

to the structure of the daily life of the individuals.

Among the circumstances that might result in

social vulnerability in the developing countries, we

might list the following: socioeconomic disparities

in the population; low schooling level, and specific

vulnerabilities related to the female gender and

with working issues, among others

_.

The major agricultural crop in the working

place of the participants was the banana. Regarding

the working time of the participants, 23.11 % of

them have been working for 20 years or more in

agriculture, with 92.3 % of them working about

8 hours a day, and 46.2 % spending from 4 to 6

hours applying pesticides. Among the workers

interviewed 30.8% reported they do not apply

pesticides in the crops anymore.

In the present study, in order to understand

the answers of the respondents to the questions posed

by the investigators, based on their perspective and

experiences from the rural world, the investigation

was centered in some observations and behavior

analysis presented along the reports of the farm

workers.

REVISTA UNIMONTES CIENTÍFICA

pesticides. Being cancer one of the diseases chosen

in the script of the investigation, the reports reveal

that most of the participants ignore that pesticides

are one of the major causes of cancer.

“Well... I don’t know about

this...” (P1)

“I thought it was caused by the

sun, I think it is caused by the

sun.” (P2)

“About this I don’t know what

to say.” (P3)

“No.” (P5)

“No, I don’t know.” (P10)

“Well, the sun in first place and

secondly smoking, I think that’s

it.” (P11)

In an ecological study from 2000 to 2010

conducted in some municipalities of the state of

Ceará in which farming workers were divided in

two groups, the first one being composed of

work-ers that intensively used pesticides and the second

group that did not use pesticides in their crops. The

first group identified a large number of admissions

by neoplasms, while the second one presented a

steady and low rate, without statistical relevance

_.

Such results revealed that, indeed, the agricultural

workers are more vulnerable to cancer due to the

context in which they are inserted, since they

han-dle such products directly and are directly exposed

to them. This reinforces the importance of using

the protective equipment in order to minimize such

risks.

An observational-exploratory study made

with agricultural workers exposed to ultraviolet sun

radiation and to pesticides, performed in a rural area

in the extreme South of Brazil in 2015, concludes

that the encouragement to use Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE) is associated to knowledge about

the disease, which might affect changes of behavior

in the rural workers

_{. When proper information}

is provided about the risks of pesticide use, the

compliance with the use of protective equipment is

higher, preventing these situations.

For Cezar-Vaz et al. (2015), in many

situations where the workers operate in a dangerous

situation they neglect this risk. Many workers

have the cultural belief that working without the

protecting equipment might imply even an act

of bravery and maleness, while using protecting

equipment is regarded as “fag stuff”

_.

The rural workers were asked about

their knowledge and use of the PPE during their

daily life work routine and in the application of

pesticides or fertilizers. The answers showed the

acknowledgement of the importance of the PPE for

their own health and the risks they are exposed to if

they do not use this equipment in a correct way, as

is present in the following reports:

“It is individual, each person has

its own PPE, and later after they

finish it is washed before being

used again, uses an individual

mask, disposable, there is a

disposable one and another one

that you wear to... that absorbs.”

(P1)

“I know that if I don’t use them

it might harm my health, I don’t

know how to answer but, it is

you have to use it for your own

safety.” (P2)

“Gloves, glasses, cap, clothes,

boots, we have everything...”

(P3)

overalls, we have the mask, the

glasses, the apron, we have the

rubber boot.” (P5)

“Yes we use them. There is a PPE

that is used when you work in the

irrigation. There are gloves, cap,

also a mask.” (P8)

These results contradict other studies

related to auto-protection during farm work, in

which other authors remark the non-use of PPE by

the workers. In a study that aimed to analyze the

use and handling of pesticides by rural workers in

ten communities from the municipality of Vitória

de Santo Antão, in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil,

the authors observed that the workers were even

more vulnerable to harmful exposures to pesticides,

since 95 (27.7%) workers reported the application

of pesticides without using any PPE and 13 (3.8%)

were not aware of protective equipment

_{. Similar}

results were found in another study in which the

agricultural workers were questioned about the use

of PPE

_.

Viero et al., (2016) investigated the

perceptions of rural workers about the risks

resulting from the use of pesticides for your

health. During the interviews they realized that

the workers were aware about the risks associated

with handling pesticides, sometimes being worried

about the consequences of this activity. However,

they disagreed about the direct association between

the use of pesticides and possible health problems,

presenting therefore an inadequate use of PPE

_.

Another important aspect regarding the

practice of the rural worker is the way they dispose

the containers that held any type of pesticide to

be used in agriculture. We know that the incorrect

disposal causes several harms to the health of

the workers and of their families, since they live

inadequate disposal might contaminate the rivers,

lakes, and springs, killing fishes and other living

beings

_{. The rural workers interviewed in this}

study apparently know and perform the correct steps

to return the containers, as seen in the following

reports.

“We always do it, the triple

washing, and it is punctured and

delivered in the delivery point,

which is the place that we have.”

(P1)

“We wash it, they ask us to wash

it, so we wash them. And then we

keep it and then give it back.”

(P6)

“We give it back. We wash it and

flush it, leave everything ok for

the return.” (P7)

“We wash it and give it back.

There is an office in town that

receives it, a collection point,

isn’t it, where you give the bill of

sale and they receive it.”(P13)

Although these workers know what to do

with the vials after use, this knowledge does not

eliminate the need of situational diagnosis of the

environmental problems, particularly related to soil

and river contamination and specific training. In

contrast, in the study made by Siqueira et al., (2012)

67 (19.5%) of the workers reported to ignore the

Recycling Law and 50 (14.6%) did not follow the

standardization that addresses all the regulations

that should be applied to the disposal of pesticide

packages

_.

Besides discarding the packages in a proper

way, it is critical to also take care of the PPE.

The cleaning and storage of these items are very

REVISTA UNIMONTES CIENTÍFICA

understand that need.

“No, it is washed individually,

each one, let’s suppose, if every

person finishes washing it, he

washes it in order to use it again

because these clothes we use

they have, they have a certain

amount of washing that might be

applied.” (P1)

“Washing, isn’t it? Use the boots,

use the clothes, which are the stuff,

the mask, cap, gloves, everything

ok, the complete PPE.” (P4)

“It is washed every day, every

day you use it you wash it, you

can’t store it without washing at

all.” (P11).

In a study performed by Espindola &

Souza (2017), there is a controversy related to the

use of PPE since, in some situations, even using

the protective equipment there is still a risk of

intoxication and contamination and, in certain cases,

the situation might even get worse, increasing the

risk if the equipment is not used correctly

_.

Among the consequences of the intensive

use of pesticides is intoxication. Peres, Rozemberg

& Lucca (2005), in a study made in the region of

the Micro Watershed of the São Lourenço Stream,

in the municipality of Nova Friburgo, Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil, noted that many workers exhibited

many defensive strategies when addressing cases

of intoxication, always referring to these cases

as involving other people and never related to

themselves, even stating that some people have

a “weaker” immune system to a specific type

of pesticide

_{. In this study, we have observed a}

similar situation. When asked if they have already

experienced cases of intoxication by pesticides, the

workers denied and referred to third parties:

“I have never had any problem

with this stuff, I have always

been extremely careful so, even

with more than 20 working in

this crop, I have never faced this

problem.” (P1)

“I know, it causes, many people

have thrown up, not from here,

but I have heard it, and also in

television when you watch Globo

Rural, with people explaining

that some individuals feel sick,

experience diarrhea, experience

everything because they do not

use the proper equipment.” (P7)

In analyzing such statements we realize that

the worker feels the need to defend their working

place, claiming that there are cases of intoxication

by pesticides, but not in their crops and not

involving himself, only third parties. There is a

denial or lessening of the risks and the development

of defense strategies. Dejours (1992) classifies this

process as denial-lessening of the risk as “defensive

ideology” in which the worker develops this sort

of ignorance of the danger as a strategy to survive

dealing with the job since, although being aware of

the risks present he develops the idea that he controls

the danger, considering that the coexistence with

this environment as essential

_{. Another question}

to the workers asked what they would do if they

experienced any intoxication after the application

of any pesticide:

“You know... you have to look for

a medical facility and take the

label of the product with you to

“You know, we would look for a

doctor. It is the first thing we do.

Taking with us the product that

we were using...” (P6)

“What they ask you when you

are feeling like that is to wash

thoroughly the hands and the

face with soap and flowing water,

and then look for a doctor.” (P8)

This shows the importance of a sector in

the company that should be responsible for training

the agricultural workers that deal directly and

daily with toxic products. Zaratim et al. (2016)

highlight the importance of the awareness of all

the employees that work in agricultural activities

regarding the importance of the use of PPE and

about the potential risks of using pesticides without

the proper protection. They point out also that the

legislation determined by the NR 31.881 (2011)

disposes that the work security training should

be performed monthly by the companies with a

minimum hour load of 20 hours, with a maximum

of 8 hours per dia.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This study allows us to conclude that the

workers realize that pesticides are detrimental

for their health and acknowledge the importance

of wearing the PPE for protecting their health.

However, the social vulnerability of these rural

workers became evident daily when they handled

the pesticides, as well as the risks to their health.

The social responsibility with the health of the rural

workers requires much more than the responsibility

of the State in the elaboration of public policies.

It demands the involvement of all institutions in

promote the well-being of the vulnerable people, in

this case the agricultural workers.

CONFLICTING INTERESTS

The authors declare the absence of

conflicting interests in the present study regarding

the funding of this investigation.

REFERENCES

1. CEZAR-VAZ, M. R. et al.

Abordagem

socioambi-ental na enfermagem: focalizando o trabalho rural e uso

de agrotóxicos

. Rev Bras Enferm [Internet]. 2016;

69(6): 1114-21. [Accessed in: 23 Nov 2017].

Available at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2016-0364.

2. World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO

recommended classification of

pesticides by

hazard and guidelines to classification

[Inter-net]. World Health Organization: Geneva; 2009

[Accessed in November 24, 2017]. Available

at:

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesti-cides_hazard/en/.

3. World Health Organization (WHO). Public

health impact of pesticides used in agriculture,

Geneva, WHO, 1990. 128p [Accessed in

No-vember 25, 2010]. Available at:

http://whqlib-doc.who.int/publications/1990/9241561394.

4. PREZA, D. L. C.; AUGUSTO, L. G. S.

Vul-nerabilidades de trabalhadores rurais frente ao

uso de agrotóxicos na produção de hortaliças

em região do Nordeste do Brasil. Rev. Bras.

Saúde Ocup. [Internet]. 2012 jun [Accessed

in: November 20, 2017]; 37(125):89-98.

Avail-REVISTA UNIMONTES CIENTÍFICA

5. CASARIL, S. C. M.; ECHER, I.; ROSA, S.

D. Fumicultura: uso de equipamento de

pro-teção individual e intoxicação por agrotóxico.

Revista de Pesquisa: Cuidado é Fundamental

Online [Internet]. April 2017; [Accessed in

November 24, 2017]; 9(2): 466-472. Available

at:

http://www.seer.unirio.br/index.php/cui-dadofundamental/article/view/5444.

6. MORAIS, T. C. A.; MONTEIRO, P. S.

Con-ceitos de vulnerabilidade humana e integridade

individual para a bioética. Rev. Bioética

[Inter-net]. August 2017 [cited in July 9, 2018]; 25(

2 ): 311-319. Available at: http://dx.doi.

org/10.1590/1983-80422017252191.

7. RIGOTTO, R. M. et al. Tendências de agravos

crônicos à saúde associados a agrotóxicos em

região de fruticultura no Ceará, Brasil. Revista

Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 16(3): 763-773,

Ceará, 2013.

8. BONOW, C. A. et al. Câncer de pele em

trabal-hadores rurais: conhecimento e intervenção de

enfermagem. Revista Escola de Enfermagem,

USP; 49(4):564-571, Rio Grande do Sul, 2015.

9. SIQUEIRA, D. F. et al. Análise da exposição

de Trabalhadores rurais a agrotóxicos. Rev Bras

Promoc Saude, Fortaleza, 26(2): 182-191, Apr./

Jun., 2013.

10. GREGOLIS, T. B. L.; PINTO, W. J.; PERES, F.

Percepção de riscos do uso de agrotóxicos por

trabalhadores da agricultura familiar do

mu-nicípio de Rio Branco, AC. Revista Brasileira

de Saúde Ocupacional, São Paulo, 37 (125):

99-113, 2012.

11. VIERO, C. M. et al. Sociedade de risco: o uso

dos agrotóxicos e implicações na saúde do

tra-balhador rural. Esc Anna Nery, 20 (1):99-105,

2016.

12. CAVALCANTI, L. P. A. N. et al. Intoxicação

por Organofosforados: Tratamento e

Metodo-logias Analíticas Empregadas na Avaliação da

Reativação e Inibição da Acetilcolinesterase.

Rev. Virtual Quim., 2016, 8 (3), 739-766.

13. ESPÍNDOLA, M. M. M.; SOUZA, C. D. F.

Trabalhador rural: O agrotóxico e sua influência

na saúde humana. Revis. da Univers. Vale do

Rio Verde, 2017, v. 15, n. 2, p. 871-880, August/

December.

14. PERES, F.; ROZEMBERG, B.; LUCCA, S. R

de. Percepção de riscos no trabalho rural em

uma região agrícola do Estado do Rio de

Janei-ro, Brasil: agrotóxicos, saúde e ambiente. Cad.

Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro,

21(6):1836-1844, November-December, 2005.

15. DEJOURS, C. A loucura do trabalho. São

Pau-lo: Cortez Editora; 1992.

16. ZARATIM, A. P. P. et al. Uso de EPI na

Agro-pecuária: Uma Análise entre os Trabalhadores

Rurais da Fazenda XB, Nova Xavantina - MT.

Interdisciplinar: Revista Eletrônica Da Univar,

V. 2, P. 29-35, 2016.